161 religious encyclopedia harmoa Harmony of the Gospels

Download 5.36 Mb.
Size5.36 Mb.
1   ...   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   ...   46

Documents. dinary priest, but can not mean the

high priest. It is noteworthy that Ezek. xl. xlviii. fails to speak of the high priest; even xlv. 19 can hardly mean anything but the of­ficiating priest of the occasion, and in Ezekiel the prince cares for the offcial ritual.

Comparison of the prescriptions of the priestly

document with the historical and prophetic wri 

tings fails to reveal in the latter in preexilic times

a high priest corresponding to the offcial of the

former. Certain passages show a chief priest such

as Jehoiada (II Kings xi. xii.), Urijah (II Kings

xvi. 10), and Hilkiah (II Kings xxii. xxiii.),, where

the designation hakkohen haggadhol first appears

and where late critics see interpolation, though

without sufficient ground since the name of a later

office may have had historic foreshad­

3. The owing. Such foreshadowing is indi­

Office in cated in kohen mishneh, " second

Historical priest " (II Kings xxv. 18; Jer. Iii.

and 24), a priest who had oversight of the

Prophetic temple in late preexilic times. But

Writings. that this is not the high priest appears

from the fact that there were in the

time of David and Solomon two such priests, Zadok

and Abiathar (II Sam. xix. 11). The dealings of

Solomon with Zadok and Abiathar (I Kings ii. 35)

show that the absolute high priest was not yet in

existence. Similar conclLSions are indicated in the

existence of chief priests for the separate sanctu­

aries of historic times. Immediately after the

exile, with Joshua, grandson of the murdered chief

priest Seraiah, the office assumes new importance

which suggests the Priest Code (cf. Zech. iii. and vi.

13). In Haggai Joshua's place is of importance,

but alongside that of Zerubbabel, who is generally

named first. Zechariah's view of the office is closely

related to that of the Priest Code. The steps to the

creation of the .offce as seen in the Priest Code are

hidden, especially in view of Ezekiel's silence. But

it may be affrmed on general grounds that the

emergence of the offce was due to a movement

which had for its purpose the emancipation of the

Church from the State. Ezekiel concentrated po­

litical power in the hands of the prince, but made it

subsidiary to the cult. The Priest Code depended

upon the centrality of the Jerusalem cult and made

the high priest the highest authority for the people.

The authority of the high priesthood grew in

postexilic times to a significant eminence through

the introduction of the priestly law which set the

anointed high priest forth as the one authority,

though still in a spiritual sense, which authority

was generally recognized. A characteristic exam­

ple of this is given in I Mace. vii. 14, where it is

stated that Alcimus, made high priest by Demet­

rius (162 B.c.), was received with confidence at

Jerusalem upon the ground that he

4. The was priest of the seed of Aaron and

Office in would do no wrong. The panegyric

Postexilic in Ecclus. 1. indicates the ideal of the

Times. offce which was maintained. The

concentration of political power into

the hands of the high priest continued in postexilic

times. Zerubbabel vanished without leaving a

successor, but the priest prince remained and be­

came the political representative of the people.

The Urim and Thummim, upon which, according

to the Priest Code, priestly authority rested, does

not appear in postexilic times. But the growing

wealth of the Jewish community ever enhanced the

political importance of the offce. The high priest's

power was somewhat limited by the Sanhedrin, but

281 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Hi larlueMirb, Priest

he alone cared for the external relations of the peo­ple and was their protector (Ecclus. 1. 4). The as­sumption of the royal title, e.g., by Aristobulus (104 103 B.c.), did not alter the essential facts of the office, and the robes needed no change to express regal authority. Under the influence of the times, the political interests became predominant, as is seen in the history of the Maccabean period; but of the office between the days of Ezra and the last pre Maccabean high priest almost nothing is known. The transference of the office to the priestly family of the Maccabees in 153 B.c. was no less illegal than the deposition of Jason in favor of Menelaus, but the gratitude of the people restrained the opposi­tion of the legalists. The downfall of the Has­moneans marked the end of the high priesthood in its special significance. True, the office con­tinued till the destruction of Jerusalem, and the holder was first in the Sanhedrin and possessed im­portant influence; but he had lost the two essen­tials of the office, its transmission by heredity and its possession for life. Herod the Great and the Romans arbitrarily changed the high priests, and the title was held not only by those who at the time performed the duties of the office, but by those who had formerly done so. With the fall of Jeru­salem the office ceased to exist. (F. BURL.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The two early treatments of the subject, still useful, are: J. S. Selden, De successions in pontifica­tum Ebrworum, book i., chaps. 11 12, Frankfort, 1673; J. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi Hierosolyrnitani, iv. 3, in vol. ix. of his works, London 1825. The most com­prehensive modern treatise is W. Baudissin, Die Gewhichte des alttestamentlichen Priesterthume, Leipsie, 1889. Con­sult further: H. Ewald, Alterthfimer des Volkes Israel, pp. 382 sqq., GSttingen, 1866, Eng. tranel., Antiquities of Israel, pp. 288 sqq., Boston, 1876; H. Gratz, in Monats­schrift fur Geeehichte and Wissenaohaft des Judenthums, 1877, pp. 450 464, 1881, pp. 49 64, 97 110; J. Wellhausen, Geschichte Israel,, chap. iv., Berlin, 1878; Oort, De Aaron­ieden, in ThT, xviii (1884), 289 335; H. Vogelstein, Der Karnp/ zwischen Priestern and Leaiten alit den Tagen Eze­chiela, Stettin, 1889; A. Kuenen, in TAT, xxiv (1890),1 42; A. van Hoonacker, Le 8acerdoce 1eritique, Louvain, 1899; Sehiirer, Geschichte, ii. 214 sqq., Eng. tranal., 11., i. 195 sqq.; idem, in TSK, 1872, pp. 593 657; Bensinger, Archdologie, Passim; Nowack, Archdologie, ii. 106 108, 117 sqil.; DB, iv. 83 84; EB, iii. 3837 47; JE, vi. 389­393: and the commentaries on Enodus and Leviticus.

HILARION, SAINT: Palestinian hermit; b. at Tabatha (5 Roman m. s. of Gaza) 291; d. in the island of Cyprus 371. He received his first in­struction at Alexandria, where he became a Chris­tian. Hearing of St. Anthony and his hermit life, he lived two months with him. He then returned home, and, at the age of fifteen, began the life of a solitary in a little but in the vicinity of Majuma, the port of Gaza. Like the Egyptian hermits, he wove baskets of rushes to earn his subsistence. At the same time he observed the strictest discipline of fasting. He was visited by frequent apparitions of demons, but soon obtained the gift of healing demoniacs and other patients. He became espe­cially known by curing the sons of an aristocratic lady, Aristtenete, and this gave occasion, in 329, to the founding of a colony of hermits about him. He is supposed to have maintained a correspondence with St. Anthony, and visited the sacred localities in Jerusalem (Jerome, Epist., lviii., ad Paulinum). Jerome has much to say of the conversions to Chris­tianity wrought by Hilarion, as when he is reported

to have won over the Saracens of Elusa in the des­ert of Kades.

Owing to predictions of impending times of dis­

tress the persecutions of the Christians under

Julian Hilarion left Palestine never to return. By

way of Lychnos he reached Castrum Theubatum

(Thaubastum), where he visited Dracontius, exiled

by the Emperor Constantius on account of his or­

thodoxy. His pilgrimage then led him to the Nile

city Aphroditopolis and to Mount St. Anthony,

from which he went to the Alexandrian suburb

Bruchium. At the port town of Paraitonion, in

the Egyptian Marmarica, he met his Palestinian

disciple Hadrian, who, apparently, came to con­

duct him back to Palestine; but he refused to go.

Hilarion next reached Sicily, and lived as a hermit

in the vicinity of the promontory Pachynum.

Here, in a wonderful manner, he was discovered by

his pupil Hesychius. But he soon left Sicily, be­

cause here, as elsewhere, a crowd of disciples gath­

ered about him, so that he could not live the soli­

tary life. He betook himself to Epidaurus in

Dalmatia. The last years of his life were spent in

Cyprus, first in the vicinity of Paphos, afterward

at a lonely, place in the interior, called Carbyria by

Sozomen. To his sojourn in Cyprus belongs the

period of his converse with Epiphanius. Shortly

before his death he made over to his favorite pupil,

Hesychius, his only belongings his tunic, cowl,

and cloak. He was buried in the neighborhood of

Paphos, but Hesychius stole his corpse, and, greatly

to the grief of the Cypriots, conveyed it to Majuma.

Hilarion is accredited with the distinction of

having been among the first to transplant the hermit

life to Palestine, though he was not the only Pales­

tinian hermit in the first half of the fourth century.

His activity, however, was confined exclusively to

southern Palestine; and, even here, he merely

naturalized the hermit life in its oldest Egyptian

form, without undertakingthe slightest . modification

or development. G. GRLYTZMACHER.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Documentary sources for the life of Hilarion are a biography by Jerome (Opera, ed. Valarsi, ii. 13 sqq.; in MPL, xxiii. 29 eqq., and ASB, Oct., ix. 16 59, Eng. transl., NPNF, 2d ser., vi (303 314), compiled about 390 and notices by Sozomen (Hilt. eccl., iii. 14; v. 10). A brief letter of eulogy written by Epiphanius of Salamis not long after the saint's death has been lost, although Jerome used it for his Vita. Jerome is the main source. He greatly exaggerated his saint's importance in order to glorify Palestinian monasticism, to which he himself be­longed. Hence, in spite of a historical nucleus, it is often hard to decide what are the facts. Consult w. Israel, Die Vita ,S. Hilarionis des Hieronvmua ale Quelle far die Anfange des Mbnchthums kritiwh untersucht, in ZIPT, xxiii (1880), pp. 129 sqq ; 0. ZSekler, in New Jahr­biichar far deutsche Theologie, iii (1894), pp. 147 sqq.; L. Servibres, Hist. de S. Hilarion, Rodez, 1884; Ceillier, Auteura sacr6a, vi. 376, vii. 593 594, 690; Neander, Chris­tian Church, ii. 142, 271, 378, iii. 420; KL, v. 2039 42; DCB, iii. 52 54.

HILARIUS: Roman deacon of the fourth cen­tury. Hilarius was an adherent of Bishop Lucifer of Calaris (q.v.), whom he probably accompanied to the Synod at Milan (355). He was mentioned by Jerome in the" Dialogue against the Luciferians" as already dead (NPNF, vi. 331, cf. 333, 334). To suppose that he is the same as the so called Am­brosiaster (q.v.) is without any warrant.



Hilary of Poitiers

BIBLIOGRAPHY: G. Kruger, Lucifer won Calaris, pp. 13, 88­

89, Leipsic, 1886; DCB, iii. 75.


468. The Sardinian Hilarus was elected bishop of

Rome probably Nov. 17, 461, consecrated Nov. 19,

and died on Feb. 28 (7), 468. As archdeacon under

Leo I. he vigorously opposed the condemnation of

Flavian of Constantinople at the Council of Ephe­

sus (449). As pope he continued the policy of his

predecessor in enforcing the claims of the Roman

see in southern Gaul (cf. Epist., x., to Mamertus of

Vienne, Feb. 25, 464). He, furthermore, gave laws

to the Spanish Church (cf. Epist., xiii. xvii.); and

the Liiber ponti ficalis praises his donations to Ro­

man churches and cloisters. His briefs and de­

crees are given in MPL, lviii. 11 32; and (criti­

cally) in A. Thiel, Epistolce pontiftcum Roma­

norum, pp. 126 174, Braunsberg, 1868.


BIBLIOGRAPHY: Liber pontifcalis, ed. Duchesne, vol. i.,

Paris, 1886. ed. Mommeen, in MGH, Gest. pont. Ron., i

(1898), 107 111; Jaff6, Revesta, i. 75 77; Schaff, Chris­

tian Church, iii. 323; DCB, iii. 72 74; Bower. Popes, i.

249 257; B. Platina, Lives of Popes, i. 108 109, London,


HILARY OF ARLES (Hilarius Arelatensis),

SAINT: Bishop of Arles; b. in northern or middle

Gaul c. 401; d at Arles c. 450. He was a relative

of Honoratus, abbot of the monastery of Lerins and

bishop of Arles 426 429, who induced him to enter

his monastery. On the death of Honoratus Hilary

became his successor. He owes his importance

chiefly to his attitude toward Augustinianism. He

repudiated the Augustinian doctrine of predestina­

tion, accusing Augustine of fatalism.

He believed, according to Prosper of Aquitaine;

that every man had sinned in Adam and could be

saved only by the grace of God in regeneration.

Salvation by the blood of Christ was offered to all

men without exception, and all who are willing to

accept faith and baptism could be saved. God

predestined for his kingdom all whom he foresaw

would be worthy of their election after their gra­

tuitous call, and therefore every man is to be ex­

horted to take part in the divine institutions in

order that nobody may despair of attaining eternal

life, since this depends upon voluntary consecra­

tion. At the instigation of Prosper, Augustine

wrote his treatises De prcedestinatione sanctorum

and De dono perseverantim, but these did not con­

vince the Gallic theologians. As he maintained

his independent judgment against a great author­

ity, so also Hilary tried to vindicate the independ­

ence of his position. On account of the political

importance of the city of Arles in the fifth century,

its bishops took the first rank in the Gallic episco­

pate, and Bishop Patroclus had already attempted

to extend the primacy of Arles over the whole of

southern Gaul. Hilary renewed his efforts, but

was opposed by Leo the Great, who finally deposed

him (see ARLES, ARCHBISHOPRIC OF). Of his wri­

tings the eulogy on Honoratus (usually quoted as

Vita Hoqorati) is undoubtedly genuine; also an

unimportant letter to Eucherius of Lyons. The

following works are enumerated in his biographies:

Vita. Honorati; Homilim in totius anni festivitt 

tibus; Symboli ezpositio; Epistolce; Versus fondis

ardentis. (A. HAUCK.)

BIBLIoaBAPH7: His works are in MPL, i. 1213 92. Con­sult A. Ebert, Litteratur des Miltelalters, i. 449 402, Leip• sic, 1889; C. F. Arnold, Casarius won Arelate, Leipeic, 1894; 0. Bardenhewer, Patrolopie, pp. 489 eqq., Frei­burg, 1894; FeeslerJungmann, Institutsones patrolopia ii. 2, pp. 336, Innsbruck, 1896; DCB, iii. 67 72; %L, v. 2042 46.


Early Life. His Commentary on Matthew (1 1). E3dle in the East (¢ 2). Activity in Arian Controversy (¢ 3). Later Life in Gaul (¢ 4).
Hilary, who has been called the Athanasius of the Western Church, comes into clear historical light only after the Synod of Milan (355), and then not for long, since he died at Poitiers in 367. Of his early life we know little. He was born of pagan and probably well to do parents at Poitiers, was well educated there, married apparently while still a heathen, was led by his study of philosophy to the Christian faith, was baptized, and, some time be­fore 355, was made bishop of Poitiers. At the time of the Synod of Milan he can not have been more than forty. He tells that at this time he did not know the Nicene Creed, and had

r. Early not heard of the strife over the dis­Life. His tinction between homoousion and ho­Commen  moiouaion. In view of the paucity of tary on evidences as to Western orthodoxy of Matthew. the period before 356, when Greek in­fluence became strong, the historical interest of Hilary's commentary on Matthew is very great. Though it lacks the beginning and end, its genuineness is beyond dispute. Its date is probably between 350 and 353. The Christology of this work is the old Western Christology of Nova­tian (and Tertullian), without the least trace of influence from Nicaea or of the Eastern catchwords of the time. Another specifically Western trait is the strong Pauline influence the antithesis of law and gospel, the emphasis laid upon justifying faith. It is difficult to decide exactly what were the sources of the theological learning set forth in this, the old­est of Hilary's works; but it will not suffice to say that he gained his knowledge of the orthodox be­lief, as it was set forth in the homoousion, from Scripture alone. He seldom names authorities; but he does mention Tertullian and Cyprian as the authors of expositions of the Lord's Prayer known to him, and he seems to have read Novatian's De trinitate under the name of one of these two. That he knew Irenaeus is possible from the parallelism of certain lines of thought, but there are things which tell in a contrary direction. Greek influences are improbable from the complete absence of any ref­erence to the Greek text of the Bible. In fact, it is unlikely that Hilary's youthful education in­cluded a " good knowledge " of Greek. It was his being drawn into the Arian controversy that made him "the Athanasius of the West," and his exile in the Orient that turned him into a Greeizing Western theologian.

After Paulinus of Treves had been exiled in 353


and Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Calaris, and Dionysius of Milan in 355, the Arian controversy began to affect Hilary, who had been present neither at Arles nor at Milan. With other

z. Exile in Gallic bishops, he renounced com 

the East. munion with Ursacius and Valens, who

had dominated the situation at Milan,

and their partizan, Saturninus of Arles. At the

same time (355 or early in 356) he wrote his first

address to the Emperor Constantius. In it, with­

out discussing dogmatic problems, he complains

of the behavior of the Arians and appeals for a

cessation of the persecution and the recall of the

banished bishops. He now evidently knows what

Arianism means, and takes his stand on the Nicene

side because it represents what he has always be­

lieved. The Arianizing party knew what his in­

fluence was worth, and made every effort to have

him also banished. They succeeded soon after the

synod held in 356 at Biterrse, the modern BSziers,

where he made fruitless efforts to win over his op­

ponents. Envoys from the synod to the emperor

procured a decree of banishment against him. The

place of his exile was at first kept secret; after a

long journey he reached the civil province of Asia,

where (principally in Phrygia) he remained until

after the Synod of Seleucia, spending his time in

study and writing. The result of his studies was

his most important work, the De trinitate, called by

Jerome Contra Arianos, by Rufinus, Cassian, and

others De fade. It was written before he came in

contact with homoiousianism, and thus before the

Synod of Ancyra in the spring of 358. The pecul­

iar western Christological tradition still appears

in it; in spite of the expression trinitas, which nat­

urally occurs more than once, binitarian views make

themselves decidedly felt. But he has now come

to know Greek theology. The homoouaion is ac­

knowledged; in place of the Novatian conception

of the eternity of the Son are clear expressions as

to his eternal generation; instead of speaking only

of the human corpus of Christ, as before, he now

speaks also of an anima created through the Logos

together with the body formed in Mary; and in

spite of all his use of the phrase susceptus homo, he

guards carefully the identity of the Logos subject

in the incarnate Logos.

Hilary followed with attention the exciting course of events in the East: the synod of the court bish­ops at Sirmium in 357, whose colorless formula (known as the Second Sirmian) even a

3. Activity Hosius subscribed; the appearance of

in Arlan the Homoiousians at the Synod of

Controversy. Ancyra; the struggle of Basil of An­

cyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleu­

sius of Cyzicus with the court bishops; the recep­

tion of the consecration formula at the Synod of

Sirmium in 358; the recrudescence of the Ariani­

zing tendency; and the plans for a new council in

Nicomedia. At this time Hilary had news at last

from Gaul, where the orthodox faith was prevail­

ing; the Sirmian formula had been rejected at a

synod held simultaneously with that of Ancyra,

and Saturninus of Arles had not improved his posi­

tion in the three intervening years. The plan for

calling a new council, to which also some Gallic

bishops were invited, troubled him, because he knew that his friends in Gaul believed that orthodoxy dwelt there alone, and was afraid that discord would arise between them and the Homoiousians, out of which only the extreme Arians could make profit. When the plan of holding two synods, one at Ancyra and one at Rimini, was adopted, Hilary addressed both the Gallic bishops and the Homoi­ousians in his De synodis, a document which was intended to unite all the anti Arians, the Homo­ousians of the West and the Homoiousians of the East, in opposition to the graver danger by ex­plaining the position of each to the others. He was somewhat in advance of his time, and zealous Westerns, especially Lucifer of Calaris, attacked him, so that he was compelled to write an Apolo­getics ad reprehensores libri de synodis responaio, of which only a few fragments remain. Even before writing this, probably, he took practical steps in the same direction. Attending the Synod of Be­leucia, he maintained friendly relatior.ci with the Homoiousians, and accompanied their deputies to the capital at the close of the sessions. He re­mained here while the delegates from Seleucia met with those .from Rimini (among whom seems to have been his antagonist Saturninus of Arles), and were compelled to agree on a bare Homoian for­mula. He was still in Constantinople during the synod of January and February, 360, and then wrote his second book, Ad Constantium. After boldly pointing out the evils of the existing con­fusion, and strongly reprobating Homoianism, he asked leave to confront Saturninus in the emperor's presence and debate the question with him. Im­mediately after this he was allowed to return to Gaul  either because he was considered a disturber of the peace of the East or his exile being termi­nated.

The mood in which he came back is evidenced by his indignant letter to the Gallic bishops under the title of Contra Constantium. He exhorts them to resist the " Antichrist " Constantius

4. Later to the death, and makes his policy,

Life in especially the Homoianism introduced

Gaul. by him, responsible for the troubles

and the degradation of the Church.

When Hilary returned to Poitiers in 360 or more

probably in 361 is uncertain; but it was he who

beat down heresy in Gaul. His spirit breathes

through the letter of the Synod of Paris (361) which

excommunicated Saturninus. Nor did he confine

his efforts to Gaul alone. In Italy he supported

Eusebius of Vercelli, now also returned from exile;

but their chief opponent, Auxentius of Milan, Be­

lated them to the new emperor, Valentinian, as dis­

turbers of the peace, and Valentinian forbade them

to trouble the church of Milan, which he regarded

as orthodox. Hilary made countercharges against

Auxentius, and after a personal hearing before

court officials, the latter, as a point of policy, ac­

knowledged the homoousion though he repudiated

it again not later than the following spring and

threw fresh odium on Hilary and Eusebius. Hil­

ary, attempting to expose his duplicity, was or­

dered to leave Milan, and in his book Contra Au­

xentium gave a full account of these proceedings to

1   ...   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   ...   46

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page